What is the cost-effectiveness of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens? An economic evaluation of a federal policy intervention among 235 million adults in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing obesity-associated cancer burdens in the USA. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort state-transition model. SETTING: Policy intervention. PARTICIPANTS: A modelled population of 235 million adults aged ≥20 years in 2015-2016. INTERVENTIONS: The impact of menu calorie labelling on reducing 13 obesity-associated cancers among US adults over a lifetime was evaluated for: (1) effects on consumer behaviours; and (2) additional effects on industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative demographics, calorie intake from restaurants, cancer statistics and estimates on associations of policy with calorie intake, dietary change with body mass index (BMI) change, BMI with cancer rates, and policy and healthcare costs from published literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Averted new cancer cases and cancer deaths and net costs (in 2015 US$) among the total population and demographic subgroups were determined. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and healthcare perspectives were assessed and compared with the threshold of US$150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). RESULTS: Considering consumer behaviour alone, this policy was associated with 28 000 (95% UI 16 300 to 39 100) new cancer cases and 16 700 (9610 to 23 600) cancer deaths averted, 111 000 (64 800 to 158 000) QALYs gained, and US$1480 (884 to 2080) million saved in cancer-related medical costs among US adults. The policy was associated with net cost savings of US$1460 (864 to 2060) million and US$1350 (486 to 2260) million from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Additional industry reformulation would substantially increase policy impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were predicted among young adults, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that menu calorie labelling is associated with lower obesity-related cancer burdens and reduced healthcare costs. Policymakers may prioritise nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the USA.

Measuring Food Security in the United States for More Than 25 years: History, Methods, Findings, and Opportunities.

This article sets the stage for the "25 Years of Food Security Measurement: Answered Questions and Further Research" conference, with support from the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, by providing some history of federal food security measurement, summarizing notable findings, and reviewing selected special topics in analysis methods. The federal government uses food security surveys to monitor national progress toward reducing food insecurity and to evaluate federal nutrition assistance programs. For the monitoring purpose, there is a tension between focus (on a single authoritative measurement approach) and breadth (encompassing multiple tools or instruments suitable for diverse populations, contexts, and applications). For the program evaluation purpose, challenges include coordination with study designs capable of real causal estimation in the face of strong self-selection effects and tailored reference periods in survey questions that match the timing of program participation. Some analysis methods treat the food security survey items as distinct experiences of hardship, whereas others treat the food security survey items as windows on an underlying latent variable, a food insecurity score. The severity of food-related hardship may be assessed quantitatively by the number of distinct hardships reported, by the estimated value of a latent food insecurity score, or by the frequency of occurrence for sentinel hardships. Ongoing work investigates statistical approaches that are sufficiently simple for policy application and yet sufficiently flexible to accurately match the empirical survey evidence.

Whole-grain food intake among US adults, based on different definitions of whole-grain foods, NHANES 2003-2018.

BACKGROUND: Whole-grain (WG) foods are defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), FDA, AHA, American Association of Cereal Chemists International (AACCI), and Whole Grains Council (WGC) in different ways with diverse focuses on grain components only, whole foods, or nutrient contents. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare estimated WG food intake among US adults using different definitions. METHODS: For each definition, we estimated the mean intake and trends of WG food consumption using survey-weighted 24-h dietary recalls from nationally representative samples of 39,755 US adults aged 20+ y from 8 cycles (2003-2018) of the NHANES. This is an observational study that used deidentified and publicly available datasets. RESULTS: The estimated mean consumption of WG foods (ounces equivalents/2000 kcal/d, oz. eq./d) varied by definition. In 2017-2018, the AHA (mean [SEM]: 1.05 [0.07] oz. eq./d) and WGC (0.95 [0.07]) definitions yielded the highest amounts, followed by the DGA (0.81 [0.06]), AACCI (0.73 [0.05]), and FDA (0.53 [0.04]). Using all definitions except for WGC, US adults increased WG food intake from 2003-2004 to 2017-2018 with the largest increase (61.5%) using the AHA (from 0.65 to 1.05 oz. eq./d), followed by DGA (0.50 to 0.81) and AACCI (0.51 to 0.73) definitions. For each definition, the main sources of WG foods consumed by US adults were ready-to-eat cereals, cooked grains and cereals, and breads (including rolls and tortillas). For all definitions except the AHA, non-Hispanic White adults and individuals with college degrees or above consumed higher levels of WG foods than non-Hispanic Blacks and those with lower levels of education. CONCLUSIONS: Different definitions affect the determination of WG foods, estimated intakes, and associated trends in WG food consumption among US adults. These findings call for a standardized definition of WG foods to guide consumers, industry, and policymakers in promoting WG intake in the US.Clinical Trial Registration: Not Applicable.

Implementing federal food service guidelines in federal and private worksite cafeterias in the United States leads to improved health outcomes and is cost saving.

Poor diet increases cardiometabolic disease risk, yet the impact of food service guidelines on employee health and its cost effectiveness is poorly understood. Federal food service guidelines (FFSG) aim to provide United States (U.S.) government employees with healthier food options. Using microsimulation modeling, we estimated changes in the incidence of cardiometabolic disease, related mortality, and the cost effectiveness of implementing FFSG in nationally representative model populations of government and private company employees across 5 years and lifetime. We based estimates on changes in workplace intake of six FFSG dietary targets and showed lifetime reductions of heart attacks (- 107/million), strokes (- 30/million), diabetes (- 134/million), ischemic heart disease deaths (- 56/million), and stroke deaths (- 8/million). FFSG is cost saving overall, with total savings in discounted healthcare costs from $4,611,026 (5 years) to $539,809,707 (lifetime) $U.S. This study demonstrates that FFSG improves health outcomes and is cost saving.

Can virtual events achieve co-benefits for climate, participation, and satisfaction? Comparative evidence from five international Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy Week conferences.

The advancement of science and evidence-based solutions for planetary health increasingly require interdisciplinary and international learning and sharing. Yet aviation travel to academic conferences is carbon-intensive and expensive, thus perpetuating planetary health and equity challenges. Using data from five annual international Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy Week conferences from 2016 to 2020, we explore whether moving to virtual conferencing produced co-benefits for climate, participation, attendee interaction, and satisfaction. We report on: absolute number of attendees, proportion of attendees from countries of different income levels, number of participants at social events, aviation CO2 emissions, and overall ratings of the event by participants. Transitioning online resulted in large reductions in travel-related aviation CO2 emissions, alongside increased attendance-including among attendees from low-income and middle-income countries. This was achieved without a major change in the participant rating of the event. However, the online format resulted in lower participation in conference social events. The urgency of reducing CO2 emissions in pursuit of planetary health and improving equity in scientific exchange requires new modalities of academic conferencing. This study indicates that co-benefits can be achieved when transitioning online. Challenges exist for virtual events, such as emulating the intangible facets of in-person interactions, overcoming time-zone limitations, and digital divides.

Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Achieving the National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative Voluntary Sugar Reduction Targets in the United States: A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: High intake of added sugar is linked to weight gain and cardiometabolic risk. In 2018, the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative proposed government-supported voluntary national sugar reduction targets. This intervention's potential effects and cost-effectiveness are unclear. METHODS: A validated microsimulation model, CVD-PREDICT (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends), coded in C++, was used to estimate incremental changes in type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative policy. The model was run at the individual level, incorporating the annual probability of each person's transition between health statuses on the basis of risk factors. The model incorporated national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey across 3 cycles (2011 through 2016), added sugar-related diseases from meta-analyses, and policy costs and health-related costs from established sources. A simulated nationally representative US population was created and followed until age 100 years or death, with 2019 as the year of intervention start. Findings were evaluated over 10 years and a lifetime from health care and societal perspectives. Uncertainty was evaluated in a 1-way analysis by assuming 50% industry compliance and probabilistic sensitivity analyses through a second-order Monte Carlo approach. Model outputs included averted diabetes cases, CVD events and CVD deaths, QALYs gained, and formal health care cost savings, stratified by age, race, income, and education. RESULTS: Achieving the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative sugar reduction targets could prevent 2.48 million CVD events, 0.49 million CVD deaths, and 0.75 million diabetes cases; gain 6.67 million QALYs; and save $160.88 billion net costs from a societal perspective over a lifetime. The policy became cost-effective (<150 000/QALYs) at 6 years, highly cost-effective (<50 000/QALYs) at 7 years, and cost-saving at 9 years. Results were robust from a health care perspective, with lower (50%) industry compliance, and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The policy could also reduce disparities, with greatest estimated health gains per million adults among Black or Hispanic individuals, lower income, and less educated Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing and achieving the US National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative sugar reformation targets could generate substantial health gains, equity gains, and cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nutrition Facts Added-Sugar Labeling and Obesity-Associated Cancer Rates in the US.

Importance: Obesity-associated cancer burdens are increasing in the US. Nutrition policies, such as the Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling, may reduce obesity-associated cancer rates. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nutrition Facts added-sugar labeling and obesity-associated cancer rates in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: A probabilistic cohort state-transition model was used to conduct an economic evaluation of added-sugar labeling and 13 obesity-associated cancers among 235 million adults aged 20 years or older by age, sex, and race/ethnicity over a median follow-up of 34.4 years. Policy associations were considered in 2 scenarios: with consumer behaviors and with additional industry reformulation. The model integrated nationally representative population demographics, diet, and cancer statistics; associations of policy intervention with diet, diet change and body mass index, and body mass index with cancer risk; and policy and health-related costs from established sources. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2019, to May 6, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated from societal and health care perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses incorporated uncertainty in input parameters and generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Results: Based on consumer behaviors, the policy was associated with a reduction of 30 000 (95% UI, 21 600-39 300) new cancer cases and 17 100 (95% UI, 12 400-22 700) cancer deaths, a gain of 116 000 (95% UI, 83 800-153 000) quality-adjusted life-years, and a saving of $1600 million (95% UI, $1190 million-$2030 million) in medical costs associated with cancer care among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was associated with a savings of $704 million (95% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million (95% UI, $1180 million-$2020 million) from the health care perspective. Additional industry reformulation to reduce added-sugar amounts in packaged foods and beverages would double the impact. Greater health gains and cost savings were expected among young adults, women, and non-Hispanic Black individuals than other population subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the added-sugar labeling is associated with reduced costs and lower rates of obesity-associated cancers. Policymakers may consider and prioritize nutrition policies for cancer prevention in the US.

Consumer confusion about wholegrain content and healthfulness in product labels: a discrete choice experiment and comprehension assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Using a legal standard for scrutinising the regulation of food label claims, this study assessed whether consumers are misled about wholegrain (WG) content and product healthfulness based on common product labels. DESIGN: First, a discrete choice experiment used pairs of hypothetical products with different amounts of WG, sugar and salt to measure effects on assessment of healthfulness; and second, a WG content comprehension assessment used actual product labels to assess respondent understanding. SETTING: Online national panel survey. PARTICIPANTS: For a representative sample of US adults (n 1030), survey responses were collected in 2018 and analysed in 2019. RESULTS: First, 29-47 % of respondents incorrectly identified the healthier product from paired options, and respondents who self-identified as having difficulty in understanding labels were more likely to err. Second, for actual products composed primarily of refined grains, 43-51 % of respondents overstated the WG content, whereas for one product composed primarily of WG, 17 % of respondents understated the WG content. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of consumer misunderstanding of grain product labels was high in both study components. Potential policies to address consumer confusion include requiring disclosure of WG content as a percentage of total grain content or requiring disclosure of the grams of WG v. refined grains per serving.

Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Volume, Tiered, and Absolute Sugar Content Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policies in the United States: A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are a rapidly growing policy tool and can be based on absolute volume, sugar content tiers, or absolute sugar content. Yet, their comparative health and economic impacts have not been quantified, in particular, tiered or sugar content taxes that provide industry incentives for sugar reduction. METHODS: We estimated incremental changes in diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of 3 sugar-sweetened beverage tax designs in the United States, on the basis of (1) volume ($0.01/oz), (2) tiers (<5 g of added sugar/8 oz: no tax; 5-20 g/8 oz: $0.01/oz; and >20 g/8 oz: $0.02/oz), and (3) absolute sugar content ($0.01 per teaspoon added sugar), each compared with a base case of modest ongoing voluntary industry reformulation. A validated microsimulation model, CVD-PREDICT (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends), incorporated national demographic and dietary data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, policy effects and sugar-sweetened beverage-related diseases from meta-analyses, and industry reformulation and health-related costs from established sources. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the volume, tiered, and absolute sugar content taxes would generate $80.4 billion, $142 billion, and $41.7 billion in tax revenue, respectively. From a healthcare perspective, the volume tax would prevent 850 000 cardiovascular disease (95% CI, 836 000-864 000) and 269 000 diabetes mellitus (265 000-274 000) cases, gain 2.44 million quality-adjusted life-years (2.40-2.48), and save $53.2 billion net costs (52.3-54.1). Health gains and savings were approximately doubled for the tiered and absolute sugar content taxes. Results were robust for societal and government perspectives, at 10 years follow-up, and with lower (50%) tax pass-through. Health gains were largest in young adults, blacks and Hispanics, and lower-income Americans. CONCLUSIONS: All sugar-sweetened beverage tax designs would generate substantial health gains and savings. Tiered and absolute sugar content taxes should be considered and evaluated for maximal potential gains.

Health and Economic Impacts of the National Menu Calorie Labeling Law in the United States: A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Excess caloric intake is linked to weight gain, obesity, and related diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Obesity incidence is rising, with nearly 3 in 4 US adults being overweight or obese. In 2018, the US federal government finalized the implementation of mandatory labeling of calorie content on all menu items across major chain restaurants nationally as a strategy to support informed consumer choice, reduce caloric intake, and potentially encourage restaurant reformulations. Yet, the potential health and economic impacts of this policy remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a validated microsimulation model (CVD-PREDICT) to estimate reductions in CVD events, diabetes mellitus cases, gains in quality-adjusted life years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the menu calorie labeling intervention, based on consumer responses alone, and further accounting for potential industry reformulation. The model incorporated nationally representative demographic and dietary data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009 to 2016; policy effects on consumer diets and body mass index-disease effects from published meta-analyses; and policy effects on industry reformulation, policy costs (policy administration, industry compliance, and reformulation), and health-related costs (formal and informal healthcare costs, productivity costs) from established sources or reasonable assumptions. We modeled change in calories to change in weight using an established dynamic weight-change model, assuming 50% of expected calorie reductions would translate to long-term reductions. Findings were evaluated over 5 years and a lifetime from healthcare and societal perspectives, with uncertainty incorporated in both 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Between 2018 and 2023, implementation of the restaurant menu calorie labeling law was estimated, based on consumer response alone, to prevent 14 698 new CVD cases (including 1575 CVD deaths) and 21 522 new type 2 diabetes mellitus cases, gaining 8749 quality-adjusted life years. Over a lifetime, corresponding values were 135 781 new CVD cases (including 27 646 CVD deaths), 99 736 type 2 diabetes mellitus cases, and 367 450 quality-adjusted life years. Assuming modest restaurant item reformulation, both health and economic benefits were estimated to be about 2-fold larger than based on consumer response alone. The consumer response alone was estimated to be cost-saving by 2023, with net lifetime savings of $10.42B from a healthcare perspective and $12.71B from a societal perspective. Findings were robust in a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our national model suggests that the full implementation of the US calorie menu labeling law will generate significant health gains and healthcare and societal cost-savings. Industry responses to modestly reformulate menu items would provide even larger additional benefits.

Federal, State, and Local Nutrition Policies for Cancer Prevention: Perceived Impact and Feasibility, United States, 2018.

Objectives. To assess stakeholder perceptions of the impact and feasibility of 21 national, state, and local nutrition policies for cancer prevention across 5 domains in the United States.Methods. We conducted an online survey from October through December 2018. Participants were invited to take the survey via direct e-mail contact or an organizational e-newsletter.Results. Federal or state Medicare/Medicaid coverage of nutrition counseling and federal or state subsidies on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program were the policies rated as having the highest perceived impact and feasibility. Overall, the 170 respondents rated policy impact higher than policy feasibility. Polices at the federal or state level had a higher perceived impact, whereas local policies had higher perceived feasibility.Conclusions. Our findings might guide future research and advocacy that can ultimately motivate and target policy actions to reduce cancer burdens and disparities in the United States.

Differences in Food-at-Home Spending for SNAP and Non-SNAP Households Given Geographic Price Variation.

BACKGROUND: As the largest nutrition safety net program in the United States, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enhances food security by providing low-income households with benefits for food-at-home (FAH) spending. A large literature finds a positive effect of SNAP on FAH spending, but it is unclear whether this relationship varies with area-level prices. SNAP benefits do not explicitly account for price variation across the contiguous United States. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to examine the SNAP/non-SNAP difference in FAH spending for households with varying levels of cash income and propensity for SNAP participation and to determine whether this difference varied with area-level prices. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data on 2,524 SNAP and non-SNAP households with cash income at or below 185% of the Federal Poverty Level were obtained from the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome was FAH spending relative to the maximum SNAP benefit corresponding to household size. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Households were grouped into quintiles based on estimated propensity of SNAP participation. Regression models included interactions between a SNAP participation indicator, a continuous price index for all goods and services, and propensity score quintile indicators. RESULTS: According to some models, the SNAP/non-SNAP spending difference was positive, on average. Among households that tended to have lower cash income and higher propensity of SNAP participation, FAH spending relative to the maximum benefit was 29 to 30 percentage points higher for SNAP households compared to low-income non-SNAP households (P≤0.05). The spending difference was similar across areas with different price levels. CONCLUSIONS: SNAP households spent more on FAH compared to low-income non-SNAP households. This association did not vary with area-level prices. Beyond food spending outcomes, future research could extend this work to understand SNAP's role in promoting food security and other outcomes, given geographic price variation.

Cost-Effectiveness of a National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax to Reduce Cancer Burdens and Disparities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption contributes to obesity, a risk factor for 13 cancers. Although SSB taxes can reduce intake, the health and economic impact on reducing cancer burdens in the United States are unknown, especially among low-income Americans with higher SSB intake and obesity-related cancer burdens. METHODS: We used the Diet and Cancer Outcome Model, a probabilistic cohort state-transition model, to project health gains and economic benefits of a penny-per-ounce national SSB tax on reducing obesity-associated cancers among US adults aged 20 years and older by income. RESULTS: A national SSB tax was estimated to prevent 22 075 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = 16 040-28 577) new cancer cases and 13 524 (95% UI = 9841-17 681) cancer deaths among US adults over a lifetime. The policy was estimated to cost $1.70 (95% UI = $1.50-$1.95) billion for government implementation and $1.70 (95% UI = $1.48-$1.96) billion for industry compliance, while saving $2.28 (95% UI = $1.67-$2.98) billion cancer-related healthcare costs. The SSB tax was highly cost-effective from both a government affordability perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $1486, 95% UI = -$3516-$9265 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and a societal perspective (ICER = $13 220, 95% UI = $3453-$28 120 per QALY). Approximately 4800 more cancer cases and 3100 more cancer deaths would be prevented, and $0.34 billion more healthcare cost savings would be generated among low-income (federal poverty-to-income ratio [FPIR] ≤ 1.85) than higher-income individuals (FPIR > 1.85). CONCLUSIONS: A penny-per-ounce national SSB tax is cost-effective for cancer prevention in the United States, with the largest health gains and economic benefits among low-income Americans.

Cardiometabolic disease costs associated with suboptimal diet in the United States: A cost analysis based on a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Poor diet is a leading risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (CMD) in the United States, but its economic costs are unknown. We sought to estimate the cost associated with suboptimal diet in the US. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A validated microsimulation model (Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model for Risk, Events, Detection, Interventions, Costs, and Trends [CVD PREDICT]) was used to estimate annual cardiovascular disease (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, angina, and stroke) and type 2 diabetes costs associated with suboptimal intake of 10 food groups (fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds, whole grains, unprocessed red meats, processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages, polyunsaturated fats, seafood omega-3 fats, sodium). A representative US population sample of individuals aged 35-85 years was created using weighted sampling from National Health And Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2009-2012 cycles. Estimates were stratified by cost type (acute, chronic, drug), sex, age, race, education, BMI, and health insurance. Annual diet-related CMD costs were $301/person (95% CI $287-$316). This translates to $50.4 billion in CMD costs (18.2% of total) for the whole population, of which 84.3% are attributed to acute care ($42.6 billion). The largest annual per capita costs are attributed to low consumption of nuts/seeds ($81; 95% CI $74-$86) and seafood omega-3 fats ($76; 95% CI $70-$83), and the lowest are attributed to high consumption of red meat ($3; 95% CI $2.8-$3.5) and polyunsaturated fats ($20; 95% CI $19-$22). Individual costs are highest for men ($380), those aged ≥65 years ($408), blacks ($320), the less educated ($392), and those with Medicare ($481) or dual-eligible ($536) insurance coverage. A limitation of our study is that dietary intake data were assessed from 24-hour dietary recall, which may not fully capture a diet over a person's life span and is subject to measurement errors. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal diet of 10 dietary factors accounts for 18.2% of all ischemic heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes costs in the US, highlighting that timely implementation of diet policies could address these health and economic burdens.

Cost Effectiveness of Nutrition Policies on Processed Meat: Implications for Cancer Burden in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Processed meats are associated with increased risk of colorectal and stomach cancers, but health and economic impacts of policies to discourage processed meats are not well established. This paper aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of implementing tax and warning labels on processed meats. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort-state transition model was developed in 2018, including lifetime and short-term horizons, healthcare, and societal perspectives, and 3% discount rates for costs and health outcomes. The model simulated 32 subgroups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity from the U.S. adult population and integrated nationally representative 2011-2014 data on processed meat consumption, with etiologic effects of processed meat consumption on cancer incidence, medical and indirect societal costs, and policy costs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the 10% excise tax would prevent 77,000 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,800, 107,000) and 12,500 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,880, 23,900), add 593,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=419,000, 827,000), and generate net savings of $2.7 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.1 billion healthcare costs saved. The warning label policy would avert 85,400 cases of colorectal cancer (95% uncertainty interval=56,600, 141,000) and 15,000 cases of stomach cancer (95% uncertainty interval=6,860, 34,500), and add 660,000 quality-adjusted life years (95% uncertainty interval=418,000, 1,070,000), with net savings of $4.5 billion from a societal perspective, including $1.3 billion healthcare costs saved. In subgroup analyses, greater health and economic benefits accrued to (1) younger subpopulations, (2) subpopulations with greater cancer risk, and (3) those with higher baseline processed meat consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The model shows that implementing tax or warning labels on processed meats would be a cost-saving strategy with substantial health and economic benefits. The findings should encourage policy makers to consider nutrition-related policies to reduce cancer burden.

FDA Sodium Reduction Targets and the Food Industry: Are There Incentives to Reformulate? Microsimulation Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Policy Points The World Health Organization has recommended sodium reduction as a "best buy" to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, Congress has temporarily blocked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from implementing voluntary industry targets for sodium reduction in processed foods, the implementation of which could cost the industry around $16 billion over 10 years. We modeled the health and economic impact of meeting the two-year and ten-year FDA targets, from the perspective of people working in the food system itself, over 20 years, from 2017 to 2036. Benefits of implementing the FDA voluntary sodium targets extend to food companies and food system workers, and the value of CVD-related health gains and cost savings are together greater than the government and industry costs of reformulation. CONTEXT: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set draft voluntary targets to reduce sodium levels in processed foods. We aimed to determine cost effectiveness of meeting these draft sodium targets, from the perspective of US food system workers. METHODS: We employed a microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis using the US IMPACT Food Policy model with two scenarios: (1) short term, achieving two-year FDA reformulation targets only, and (2) long term, achieving 10-year FDA reformulation targets. We modeled four close-to-reality populations: food system "ever" workers; food system "current" workers in 2017; and subsets of processed food "ever" and "current" workers. Outcomes included cardiovascular disease cases prevented and postponed as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from 2017 to 2036. FINDINGS: Among food system ever workers, achieving long-term sodium reduction targets could produce 20-year health gains of approximately 180,000 QALYs (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 150,000 to 209,000) and health cost savings of approximately $5.2 billion (95% UI: $3.5 billion to $8.3 billion), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $62,000 (95% UI: $1,000 to $171,000) per QALY gained. For the subset of processed food industry workers, health gains would be approximately 32,000 QALYs (95% UI: 27,000 to 37,000); cost savings, $1.0 billion (95% UI: $0.7bn to $1.6bn); and ICER, $486,000 (95% UI: $148,000 to $1,094,000) per QALY gained. Because many health benefits may occur in individuals older than 65 or the uninsured, these health savings would be shared among individuals, industry, and government. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of implementing the FDA voluntary sodium targets extend to food companies and food system workers, with the value of health gains and health care cost savings outweighing the costs of reformulation, although not for the processed food industry.